Blending political, historical, and sociological analysis, Bernard S. Silberman offers a provocative explanation for the bureaucratic development of the modern state. The study of modern state bureaucracy has its origins in Max Weber's analysis of the modes of social domination, which Silberman takes as his starting point.
Whereas Weber contends that the administration of all modern nation-states would eventually converge in one form characterized by rationality and legal authority, Silberman argues that the process of bureaucratic rationalization took, in fact, two courses. One path is characterized by permeable organizational boundaries and the allocation of information by "professionals." The other features well-defined boundaries and the allocation of information by organizational rules. Through case studies of France, Japan, the United States, and Great Britain, Silberman demonstrates that this divergence stems from differences in leadership structure and in levels of uncertainty about leadership succession in the nineteenth century.
Silberman concludes that the rise of bureacratic rationality was primarily a response to political problems rather than social and economic concerns. Cages of Reason demonstrates how rationalization can have occurred over a wide range of cultures at various levels of economic development. It will be of considerable interest to readers in a number of disciplines: political science, sociology, history, and public administration.
"Silberman has produced an invaluable, densely packed work that those with deep knowledge of public administrative development will find extremely rewarding." —David H. Rosenbloom, American Political Science Review
"An erudite, incisive, and vibrant book, the product of intensive study and careful reflection. Given its innovative theoretical framework and the wealth of historical materials contained in it, this study will generate debate and stimulate research in sociology, political science, and organizational theory. It is undoubtedly the best book on the comparative evolution of the modern state published in the last decade."—Mauro F. Guillen, Contemporary Sociology
1 有用 平先生 2011-05-29 06:41:08
太高級了這書。。。
0 有用 功夫熊猫小碗熊 2012-10-16 10:53:38
有深度、历史研究够详细,几乎可以作为四国政治发展史来读,但冗长啰嗦,文笔不好。韦伯式官僚制理想型的实践考察,不同的历史发展形成不同的社会阶级和政治结构(主要是政党政治vs社会网络政治),面对不确定性和权力交接问题的领导人开发出组织至上vs专业个人主导两种不同的官僚模式,所谓理性其实是一种政治选择。政党政治下主导政党主要担心的问题是官僚组织能否有效执行政党决议,故推行组织至上、法条规范约束力大、个人... 有深度、历史研究够详细,几乎可以作为四国政治发展史来读,但冗长啰嗦,文笔不好。韦伯式官僚制理想型的实践考察,不同的历史发展形成不同的社会阶级和政治结构(主要是政党政治vs社会网络政治),面对不确定性和权力交接问题的领导人开发出组织至上vs专业个人主导两种不同的官僚模式,所谓理性其实是一种政治选择。政党政治下主导政党主要担心的问题是官僚组织能否有效执行政党决议,故推行组织至上、法条规范约束力大、个人以有限资质投考然后接受组织内培训和内化的官僚制度模式,这方面以英国美国为主,但由于美国政党政治冒起较晚,彭德尔顿法更是迟迟才出现,故美国总统在官僚首长委派方面权力仍大,任命职位多。网络政治下领导者担忧权力交接造成政绩抹杀,故重视官僚制度内个人专业操守、强调个人的资质和按资历晋升,以日本法国为代表。 (展开)
0 有用 江离载菁 2014-03-24 16:23:37
Silberman不是一个很好的story teller;理论部分也写得有点绕,不过瑕不掩瑜。很多时候官僚体系的差别在研究中作为一种制度变量,总是放在自变量的位置,没有深究为何有差别;Silberman把之作为因变量,理论建的很漂亮,赞
0 有用 昆图库塔 2024-01-12 21:13:18 浙江
本来应该是应该打五颗星的,非常精彩的理论建构和扎实的研究,光看引用了那么多文献就可见一斑,但是某些部分读起来真的很头大,扣掉一颗星。法国前半部分太晕了,拿破仑开始就还好;美国部分相对好读。这也可能是因为在理论建构部分低不确定性国家应对的逻辑相对简单,政治家的考虑在于对行政机关的控制,而高不确定性的分类中政治家和官僚机构需要解决各种问题,政治系统随时面临崩溃的威胁,应对措施的逻辑也相对复杂,经验分析... 本来应该是应该打五颗星的,非常精彩的理论建构和扎实的研究,光看引用了那么多文献就可见一斑,但是某些部分读起来真的很头大,扣掉一颗星。法国前半部分太晕了,拿破仑开始就还好;美国部分相对好读。这也可能是因为在理论建构部分低不确定性国家应对的逻辑相对简单,政治家的考虑在于对行政机关的控制,而高不确定性的分类中政治家和官僚机构需要解决各种问题,政治系统随时面临崩溃的威胁,应对措施的逻辑也相对复杂,经验分析也就非常冗长和繁琐。 (展开)
0 有用 表独立兮于山间 2014-05-28 11:05:39
看了C6.对日本的兴趣趋于零,还用这么多奇怪的词,真蛋疼